Ito et al. (2019) “used a computational model of circulation and cycling of elements in the ocean to simulate [changes in seawater oxygen levels in the North Pacific] for the last approximately 70 years” and to understand their causes. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005987…

“We show that the changing coverage of weather stations in the Indian rainfall data leads to spurious increases in extreme rainfall. This suggests that previously reported trends of extreme rainfall are biased positive.” https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079709

A new study in Nature Climate Change finds an even stronger case for reducing CO2 emissions to stabilize climate change through a shift from coal to natural gas. Findings are robust under range of leakage rates and uncertainties in emissions data. [link]

97 responses to “Week in review – science edition”

Thanks for your work in helping keep us informed, Dr. Curry. A few observations:

1) The evaluation of UN IPCC climate models’ handling of radiation forcing and response at the surface shows us what we already intuit: Each modeling group makes up its own physics rules and parameterizations and there is no consistency in their “science.”

2) The Abstract of the AGU paper on upper tropical tropospheric water vapor saturation seems to imply that there is no room for a CO2-induced water vapor hotspot. Am I reading that wrong?

3) Severin Borenstein acknowledges that Developed-World CO2 taxes won’t have any significant effect on CO2 emissions because the Developing-World will not implement CO2 taxes on their higher emission levels. Even given that reality, he still wants high CO2 taxes, but coupled with Western governments’ massive funding of green energy technology scientific work and, presumably, giving large monetary incentives to individual innovators. I’m not clear on how he expects politicians and bureaucrats will pick scientific winners and, especially, decide on how grandly to reward budding Bill Gates’s. But, hope springs eternal, especially in people who are not responsible for implementing well-meaning policies.

1. “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer

This recent paper suggests that current day ice sheets thinning and flow can be influenced by physiographic and geological properties beyond external climate forcing. Other papers have noted the same possibilities in present day Ice Sheet dynamics but this paper reconstructs what possibly happened over 15,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

“The reconstruction reveals a significant negative trend (‐1.9 ± 2.2 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1) in the SMB over the entire WAIS during the 19th century, but a statistically significant positive trend of 5.4 ± 2.9 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1 between 1900 and 2010, in contrast to insignificant WAIS SMB changes during the 20th century reported earlier. At regional scales, the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) and western WAIS show opposite SMB trends, with different signs in the 19th and 20th centuries”
“….significant negative trend….during the 19th Century…..”

I don’t recall any previous paper suggesting a reduction in WAIS SMB pre 1900. It also raises the question of factors being at play as noted in the Bradwell, et al, 2019, paper linked above.

So, we have geothermal activity under the Ice sheets, evidence that geomorphological properties influenced glacial thinning in the last 15,000 years and this paper noting SMB loss pre 1900.

This paper, Larour, et al, 2019, just released, entitled “Slowdown in Antarctica mass loss from solid earth and sea level feedbacks.”, adds to previous work of crustal uplift and grounding line migration.

It is refreshing that research is finally digging into all processes that might be influencing Ice Sheet instability. Being obsessed with AGW to the extent that it blinds researchers to all other possibilities serves no one.

There are ice cores for Antarctic that go back 800 thousands years. That is proof the ice sheet is stable. The ice core data shows that when the temperature is warmer, ice accumulation is more. The ice core data shows that when the temperature is colder, ice accumulation is less. That alone, would cause ice sheet stability.

The Greenland ice core data shows the same relationship between temperature and ice accumulation. Ice sheets are stable in both hemispheres. Ice accumulations are more when oceans are warmer and more thawed and ice accumulations are less when oceans are colder and more frozen.

Over the last ten thousand years, the north above 60 degrees has had a lowering of solar in and the south below 60 degrees has had an increase of solar in. That has reduced the ice accumulation in the Northern Hemisphere and increased the ice accumulation in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a factor in temperature regulation of the climate that is left out of Models and Theory.

I skimmed through the article. This is about the greatest ice sheet on earth. No mention of snowfall and ice accumulation. We have ice core data that could have been used. All ice sheets on land come from snowfall. We have data that tells about that. Study the ice accumulation rates as a function of temperature. This study did not consider where ice even comes from, throw it away.

I posted the following comment last night on another CE thread, before this thread came along. I hope it is as eye opening to the denizens as it was to me. It looks like things are happening at the DOE but at least one climate science organization is missing the target (IMHO).
**************************************************
The DOE has initiated the Exoscale Computing Project (ECP) that will include the world’s most powerful and smartest supercomputer (the IBM Summit at Oak Ridge). Through its INCITE program, DOE is soliciting scientific research proposals that can utilize the ECP and there is a list of proposals that have been accepted so far.

The following proposal highlights, to me, a problem in climate science research:

The title of the proposal (it was accepted) is “High-Resolution Climate Sensitivity and Prediction Simulations with the CESM”

It states “For 2019, the team has designed a set of three simulation sub-projects to assess parametric and structural uncertainty in earth system models, and to provide efficient guidance for future projects focused on longer timescale predictability.”

“The first sub-project employs the Cloud-Associated Parametrizations Testbed (CAPT), a framework that provides a computationally efficient method to identify parametrization errors in earth system simulations, so as to investigate error growth in the coupled system.”

The problem I have with this proposal is that it’s the wrong proposal at the wrong time. With an opportunity to use the most advanced supercomputers, scientists should be seeking to more fully understand cloud dynamics and interactions, rather than seeking new cloud parameters for existing and unsuccessful models. These scientists are jumping the shark and wasting resources!

re Earth system models (and simulations):
“Earth system modeling and integrated assessment modeling is politics….Recent developments such as model application for the support of geoengineering (Feichter & Quante, 2017) or the deceptive political rhetoric of the 2° and 1.5° targets lay open a dangerous political dynamic putting model application on the verge of fake science.”
Source: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018MS001526

I wonder if their GPA might go up if they spent that time studying rather than protesting.

If students are so fragile that liking a Merry Christmas Tweet triggers them, are they really prepared for the rough and tumble of the real world, like getting fired.

There is only a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We don’t have the technology to determine thought……yet. But the day is coming. Those who want to destroy freedom of thought and expression now will be the same ones to quash freedom of thought when the technology becomes available.

What would the Framers think? Forget them. Who cares. They were slave owners anyway, and their statues are on somebody’s list for destruction.

We are spending more for taxes and power to provide less reliable energy.

Go back to Nuclear and Coal and Gas. Climate change is natural and it is not outside historical bounds. They are getting rich selling less energy for more profit and they must scare people to get them to pay more.

The Ocean’s Biggest Waves Are Getting Even Biggerhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190425143540.htm
“The researchers found that extreme winds in the Southern Ocean have increased by 1.5 metres per second, or 8 per cent, over the past 30 years. Extreme waves have increased by 30 centimetres, or 5 per cent, over the same period. The researchers, a pair of scientists from the University of Melbourne Department of Infrastructure Engineering in Australia, have built the largest-ever database of wind and wave data, and found that both increased significantly between 1985 and 2018.”

The NASA HALO and European Aeolus satellite were built to study this important atmospheric phenomena.

“Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

With a lack of perspective – do you assume anthropogenic causation of short term variability?

Phil
Of the comments and links I provided above, the reference to loss from 1800-1900 was the most interesting. I’m quite sure I’ve read other papers stating that SMB loss began in the 1940s. I have no idea of why they thought it began at that particular date.
It certainly goes against the AGW narrative, as do the other papers I linked. The other studies though don’t seem to be as significant as the one you mentioned.

I hope some denizens will weigh in on what appears to be quite a remarkable paper simply because it suggests SMB loss well before 1950.

We just came out of the Little Ice Age, of course we have lost ice, that is how ice cycles work. We are warm now and that is when ice accumulation becomes enough to replace the lost ice, Ice core data shows us that.

We have had ice loss since the coldest time in the Little Ice Age. That stops after we are warm enough to increase ice accumulation enough.
There have been little cycles of more and less ice loss, and now there will be little cycles of more and less ice gain. We came out of the last Little Ice Age and we will go into the next Little Ice Age when ice volume and weight are sufficient to increase ice flow rates to more than ice loss rates.

This is well documented in Ice Core Data. Temperature and Ice Accumulation Rates are in the data.

The linked paper showed that from 1800-1900 WAIS was losing ice.
And that from 1900-2010 WAIS was gaining ice.
So I repeat my question – how can WAIS gaining ice be reconciled with accelerating and alarming melting of WAIS?
(Or does it even have to be – guess its a naive question.)

The irony here is that the explosion occurred just after a big conference on battery storage ended in town. The exploding battery facility was only 1200 feet from the nearest residence. This is now likely to change. Chemical energy in vast quantities is tricky stuff.

Cost allocation following considerations of intra- and intergenerational effort sharing in line with the Brazilian Proposal8 would lead to public spending peaking at 15% of GDP in Annex I countries (UNFCCC) as depicted in Fig. 2, rendering the implementation of this mechanism extremely difficult (see SI B)

With US federal spending of 21% of GDP, the UNFCCC is proposing “mitigation” of 71% of US government spending!Roger Pielke Jr’s “iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins.”
50% of US federal budget is for social security and medicare etc.
Asking taxpayers to bury in the ground 150% of all social security plus medicare with negligible benefit will be an absolute non-starter!
No mention of adaptation.
Nor of making sustainable fuel cheaper than fossil fuels.

Wrong meme? Read the impulse to totalitarianism. But is the reaction here to a word in common parlance? The implication that this is a prominently American problem? Or my challenge to Climate etc groupthink?

“Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.” Michael Shellenberger

Based on a study that doesn’t seem to be available. As I said – it is about 10% across Australia and the result of government intervention and not necessarily due to intrinsic costs of the technology.

Wrong meme? Read the impulse to totalitarianism. But is the reaction here to a word in common parlance? The implication that this is a prominently American problem? Or my challenge to Climate etc groupthink?

Being a black academic in America: It is a collection of anecdotal “evidence”. My impression is that the primary culprit is a skewed admissions process. It allows less qualified black students to enroll in universities. Then the less qualified students struggle and drop out – it is very unfair to them, as they lose years and accumulate a significant debt. It is also unfair for qualified students who are then looked at with a suspicion – is (s)he here because (s)he is good, or because (s)he is black?

Maureen Downey, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution April 16 had an article on the low pass rate (47%) of all elementary teachers on a standardized licensing examination (Praxis). Further differentiating test pass rates found:

“only 38 percent of black teacher candidates… pass the most widely used licensing test even after multiple attempts,”

Maureen Downey had another article in AJC April 26 on poor teacher retention especially in minority dominant schools.

The gist of the articles was that those who wanted to be teachers had poor preparation from poor college course selection to low expectations but also having elementary math skills, unable to pass middle school math exams.

In the Cleveland Plain Dealer today (April 27) was an article on the take over by the State of Ohio of the East Cleveland school system imposing a CEO whose primary focus was to get adults involved in their child’s education as an attempt to address high student and teacher absenteeism.

It seems to me that the students who make it through the college application process have already navigated a gauntlet of adversity. It should come as no surprise to anyone that high name recognition schools have improved their appearance of diversity by admitting applicant immigrants from Africa and those whose parents are many times mixed race like President Obama.

On top of the preparation issues, many African Americans in academia as I have experienced as colleagues, feel lost, in a wilderness, not knowing whom to trust. The many more Africans with whom I interacted in academia as colleagues, negotiate their way through the maelstrom just as their Asian, Latino and white counterparts, successfully.

To me, there is a culture of victimhood in the African American population which serves as a drag on many people’s progress.

There’s a remarkable disconnect between the very disparate results presented–on log-log graphs–for the spectra of variability of climate models and those of proxy data and the sanguine conclusions drawn therefrom. While discrepancies over an order of magnitude are glossed over, the mere similarity of power-laws governing the broad continuum is claimed to indicate that the the physics of the models “is fundamentally sound.” The conclusion is drawn, without any analytic justification, that ‘global temperature is more predictable than has been supposed.” Furthermore, the stunning hypothesis is posited that “today’s climate variations at decadal to centennial scales are echoes of the last Ice Age.”

While the “memory” of the ocean in some of its modes of temperature variability is indeed quite long, those modes involve dynamically-uncertain, slow, turbulent transport over great distances, which changes the temperature of the water in a highly unpredictable, chaotic manner. Even if models were capable of specifying the dynamics of global transport very accurately, the unpredictability would not disappear. In the best of circumstances, power spectra can only specify ensemble properties, never any actual time-domain realization of a chaotic variable. Any idea that there can be practically useful, purely empirical predictability of a very wide-band process is ludicrous.

What we see in the blog-musings of a self-described “gonzo climate scientist” are the ambitious academic dreams of the scientifically immature.

‘Variable external forcing obscures the weak relationship between the NAO and North Atlantic multi-decadal SST variability’

Well the relationship would be weaker only using the cold season, especially when the stronger negative NAO episodes are occurring in other seasons. It’s not like the other negative NAO episodes have no effect on the AMO. Looking at the noise level, negative NAO episodes drive positive AMO anomalies with a lag in weeks. While looking at trends of the NAO cold season only and with an imagined 10 year lag, this study has reversed the NAO-AMO relationship, and in doing so, has also reversed the AMO response to their external forcing. Positive NAO does not drive a warm AMO.

Is changing by 0.02 degrees Celsius per year, too fast for you to cope with?

I have some bad news for you about sea level rise. You should start running NOW !!!

Why will Norwegians only be affected a little bit (in your words – may be marginally more comfortable), but Kenyans will be affected a lot (in your words – may be driven beyond physiological limits)?

5% of humans (about 397 million) live with an average summer temperature of over 38 degrees Celsius. Kenya’s average summer temperature is only 29.1 degrees Celsius. They can easily cope with warmer temperatures.

But surely the point is that Norway and Kenya both warm by an amount that you haven’t predicted? And the Kenyans have an unspecified increase in the number of days above 40C? Peak temperatures and not averages.

But it is worse than that. Climate is a complex dynamical system thus deterministically chaotic hence abrupt and in principle beyond predictable.
Dimitris Koutsoyiannis here redefines random as unpredictable and deterministic as predictable.

“Here I argue that such views should be reconsidered by admitting that uncertainty is an intrinsic property of nature, that causality implies dependence of natural processes in time, thus suggesting predictability, but even the tiniest uncertainty (e.g. in initial conditions) may result in unpredictability after a certain time horizon.” https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/14/585/2010/

But if you can’t predict the future how would you know? Or is this the warm is good skeptic groupthink and cognitive dissonance has kicked in?

The highest average temp in Kuwait happens at the end of July and is 38.3. How much that will increase by you don’t have a freakin’ clue.

Baghdad?

Peak temperatures can be be much higher – which is when all the dying happens.

The US was chosen because the data is better and it has such diverse regional climates – the data is given state by state.

And do you seriously think I should give a rat’s arse whether you believe NOAA and the CDC on US fatalities? Or that I can be bothered with a motivated blog analysis of the wrong metric? But I can confirm your suspicion that I am an arse.

I would rather have a civil discussion, without name calling. I usually respond to name calling, by being equally or more obnoxious. But I will try to be nice.

I have very detailed temperature information for the whole Earth. Tavg, Tmax, and Tmin, for every month, for over 24,000 locations. I have 2 locations in Kuwait (Kuwait City and Ad Dasma’).

I have spent months researching world temperatures. I probably have a better idea than most people, how much temperatures will increase. I used the GISTEMP gridded Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI), to work out the theoretical temperature increase since 1880, for every 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cell of the Earth (all 16,200 of them).

The webpage says, “Each year in the United States, about 1,330 people die of cold exposure, essentially freezing to death. You may picture outdoor adventurers dying of hypothermia on snowy mountaintops. While rates are higher in rural areas, many cold-related deaths and illnesses occur in cities too.”

The figure of 1,330 looks reasonable to me.

The graph that you displayed for Baghdad?, agrees with my temperatures quite well. I find the Y-axis of the graph a bit strange, because they don’t have even steps of temperature.
It goes (0, 8, 17, 25, 33, 42, 50). So the steps are (8, 9, 8, 8, 9, 8)
Why not use equal steps?

I was thinking Florida with high humidity and occasionally extreme temps. This is the 1958 NASA result that didn’t appear above None of your temps matter a damn.

“Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths–NOAA and the CDC–differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer. One reasonable take on the literature is that extreme heat and extreme cold are both likely responsible for at least 1300 deaths per year in the U.S. In cities containing 1/3 of the U.S. population, a warming climate is expected to increase the number of extreme temperature deaths by 3900 – 9300 per year by 2090, at a cost of $60 – $140 billion per year. However, acclimatization or other adaptation efforts, such as increased use of air conditioning, may cut these numbers by more than one-half.” https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

You didn’t actually read the link did you?

Acclimatization in Norway happened long ago. And there are other and nonlinear factors in climate than CO2.

I think your behavior shows a resistance to consideration of alternate views in favour of your grossly simplified memes. I suggest less fiddling with temps and more reading in nuanced Earth system science. For God’s sake you have not heard of abrupt climate change. Google it. As for accusing me of being an arse – I was told it takes one to know one.

I find it amusing, that you think that your temperatures matter, but mine don’t.

What special quality do your temperatures have, that mine don’t have.

Bear in mind, that I have temperature data for over 24,000 locations on the Earth.

Since you want to fight about deaths from cold, I will quote another part of the webpage I found

Cold-related illness and death are underreported because only a small number are appropriately recognized and coded as hypothermia and tissue damage. Yet, cold temperatures can worsen conditions like heart disease and respiratory illness, causing hospitalizations and deaths that may not be recognized as related to the cold on death certificates or hospital records. Still, focusing on those cases that are recognized and coded as cold-related can provide valuable information.

If there are enough food, norwegians can survive a cold climate. During LIA there were famines and high death rate because of failing crops. A couple of giant volcano eruptions would make the people more vulnerable, if it wasn`t for global warming.

Can someone explain to me why the hothouse late Cretaceous, with high temperatures and high CO2, was catastrophic? How did any insects survive – if the BBC now tell us that 100 more years of current warming will kill all insects?

During the Late Cretaceous, Earth was a greenhouse world characterized by extreme temperatures and high concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Records from the Falkland Plateau in the southern Atlantic Ocean suggest that during the period of peak warmth, which lasted from about 100 to 90 million years ago, sea surface temperatures at middle to high southern latitudes exceeded 30°C, conditions that were significantly hotter than today’s mean annual average of 0°C. But because these data have been difficult to reconcile with climate models and other proxy records, scientists have debated whether they truly reflect global climatic conditions.

Now O’Connor et al. further explore this question using TEX86, an organic paleothermometer regularly used to reconstruct past sea surface temperatures. The team applied this technique to Late Cretaceous sediment samples collected at Deep Sea Drilling Project drilling Sites 327 and 511 on the Falkland Plateau as well as Ocean Drilling Program Sites 1138 and 1135 on the Kerguelen Plateau in the southern Indian Ocean. All four locations lay between 50°S and 60°S from about 100 to 66 million years ago.

The data indicate that Late Cretaceous sea surface temperatures ranged from 27°C to 37°C at these locations. Because these results are comparable to other local proxy data as well as the global TEX86 records, the authors conclude their data accurately reflect long-term global trends and therefore corroborate previous interpretations of extreme warmth during the Late Cretaceous at Earth’s subpolar latitudes. The study results also show that after sea surface temperatures peaked during the Cenomanian-Turonian time interval, around 94 million years ago, Earth’s climate experienced a slow and steady cooling trend that lasted for at least 16 million years.

These findings also highlight the discrepancy between proxy records and climate model simulations, which struggle to reproduce such warm conditions at middle to high latitudes…

One of the key skills of a climate scientist is to apply the hand of a conjurer to turn a good news story into a bad news story.

For example the above paper goes into intricate contortions to show that ENSO and AMO affects “carbon” (yes all those black soot particles floating around in the atmosphere) uptake in Mediterranean forests and this is expertly processed into bad news.

However the bigger picture is that carbon (dioxide) uptake increase due to anthropogenic CO2 increase (i.e. greening of the planet) is 60% more than had previously been assumed in models, according to this Nature paper:

Think of all those pestilential trees encroaching onto grassland and that sinister unnatural grass disfiguring pristine desert! Save us Greta save us!! David Attenborough was so right not to mention that nasty word “photosynthesis” one single time in his entire documentary on plants 🌱 on earth.

“Driven by a strong CO2 fertilization effect, magnitude of NBP increased from 27.17 TgC/yr in the 1980s to 34.39 TgC/yr in the 1990s but decreased to 23.70 TgC/yr in the 2000s due to change in climate. Adoption of forest conservation, management, and reforestation policies in the past decade has promoted carbon sequestration in the ecosystems, but this effect has been offset by loss of carbon from ecosystems due to rising temperatures and decrease in precipitation.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075777

Ignoring a strong reliance on adjectives – the key to carbon uptake – plants take up carbon and not carbon dioxide – is net biome production. The net of photosynthesis and respiration that varies with environmental conditions. Note the “amplified seasonal swings of atmospheric CO2 concentration” in the Winkler et al paper.

The other paper suggests that shifting patterns of terrestrial drought is associated with patterns of ocean surface temps – and influence carbon uptake in the modern era. Shifting ocean regimes have been with us always.

Think of it as a puzzle where diverse bits of science are synthesized into the real bigger picture of the Earth system as a whole. This is quite unlike the climateball practice of accepting or rejecting bits of science based on personal antipathies. You should – btw – knock off the purple prose.

“The case has identified a culture of censorship when it comes to challenging claims surrounding climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. Not once did JCU attempt to disprove claims made by Dr Ridd about the Great Barrier Reef.”

“Fearmongering about the health of the Great Barrier Reef must now desist.”

“JCU has shredded the idea that Australian universities have any sort of commitment to scientific integrity and free academic inquiry. JCU’s actions prove the depth of the free speech crisis confronting Australia’s universities.”

“Australian Universities must now commit to signing up to the model code as recommended by the Hon. Robert French AC in his review of freedom of speech at Australian Universities,” said Mr Rozner.

“Many lakes and estuaries around the world, which provide drinking water for millions of people, and support a myriad of ecosystem services, already have toxic, food web-altering, hypoxia-generating blooms of cyanobacteria. The occurrence is driven by high inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) to the ecosystems from human sources.(1) To reduce the frequency and intensity of noxious and sometimes toxic cyanobacteria blooms, sizable reductions of both N and P are urgently needed.(2) Yet, Climate change will severely affect our ability to control blooms, and in some cases could make it near impossible.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b03990

Nitrogen and phosphorous inputs cause algal blooms. Because global warming is so good for life – there is more biomass. Sediment below some 1cm is anoxic as a result of limited oxygen diffusion. In anoxic environments nitrogen is transformed to gaseous dinitrogen or nitrous oxide that is lost to the atmosphere. Insoluble orthophosphate – a crystalline lattice – is transformed into soluble forms by faculative organisms stripping the molecule of oxygen. The oxic 1cm top of sediment keeps the soluble phosphorus contained. When the algal bloom dies and settles on the bottom decomposition depletes oxygen in the surface of the sediment allowing a surge of soluble and bioavailable phosphorus to move into the water column. This change in the balance of bioavailable nutrients favors nitrogen fixing red tides.

But the most important question is whether or not it is caused by global warming?

The highest energy cosmic rays that travel at almost the speed of light have enormous kinetic energy. A single proton has a kinetic energy equal to a baseball moving at 94 kph. We are so familiar with the concept of kinetic energy that we take it for granted that modern physics does not explain it. According to modern physics, there are four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. All kinds of energy must be one of these four forces. Kinetic energy is not one of them. Potential energy from the four forces can be converted to kinetic energy. However, kinetic energy itself is not any of these forces.

For example, a proton can be accelerated using a magnetic field or a gravitational field. The kinetic energy is identical regardless of the field that accelerated it. We cannot tell the difference. Even when the fields disappear, the kinetic energy remains. Its existence does not depend on the fields. This implies that kinetic energy is unique from electromagnetism and gravity.

Even the mundane billiard ball defies modern physics. Let‘s see how modern physics explains how billiard balls work. General relativity is a field theory of gravity. It does not explain how billiard balls conserve momentum. The collision of billiard balls does not require a gravitational field. Quantum mechanics states that electrons cannot have the same four quantum numbers. Electrons cannot be at the same point in space. This partly explains why billiard balls bounce when they collide. The electrons in the balls cannot occupy the same space. The repulsive electromagnetic force between electrons pushes the balls away from each other.

However, this is not the whole story. The repulsive force is inversely proportional to the distance between electrons. They have to be compressed to reduce the distances and increase the repulsive force enough to move the balls. The electromagnetic force is a reaction force. It is a reaction to the compression of electrons. So what is the action force? The force that caused the compression in the first place.

The clue that a 5th force exists comes from classical physics. It is so fundamental that Newton and Euler made it their first laws. The two giants of physics intuitively knew the 5th force. Newton’s 3rd law gives a better insight how billiard balls work than quantum mechanics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Quantum mechanics gives the reaction of electrons. The action comes from Newton’s first law. The moving ball has inertia. Newton made separate laws for inertia and gravity. He knew inertia is independent of gravitational force.

Euler is even more explicit than Newton. The action of the billiard ball is described by Euler’s first law:
F = dp/dt
Where F is a force and dp/dt is the time derivative of momentum. This is a force different from gravitational force. Causality is reversible in Euler’s equation. It can be viewed as a force causing a change in momentum of the ball, or a change in momentum of the ball causing a force. The momenta of billiard balls are conserved in elastic collisions. Exchange of momenta is triggered by an impact force.

Theoretical physicists think there is nothing new to discover from classical physics. New discoveries will have to come from modern physics. I turn this assertion on its head. Our knowledge of kinetic energy, inertia and momentum comes from classical physics. Modern physics does not have a theory why kinetic energy exists at all. So I formulated one.

In his famous physics lecture, Feynman said the two-hole experiment is the only mystery in quantum mechanics. Nobody can explain it because nobody understands quantum mechanics. It implies that physicists don’t know what they’re talking about in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. I will show that the mystery of the two-hole experiment is intimately related to the mystery of kinetic energy. The solution to the two mysteries leads to the 5th fundamental force that also explains many things such as:

Where does kinetic energy come from?
How is momentum conserved?
Where does impulse come from?
What is matter-wave?
What is a wave-particle duality?
How is matter-wave interference created?
How is superposition created?
What is a probability wave?
Why is a particle like a harmonic oscillator?
How do particles get entangled?
What does “collapse of wave function” mean? The so-called measurement problem
How does locality lead to relativity of time and apparent non-conservation of energy?
How does nonlocality lead to absolute time and actual non-conservation of energy?
All of these are answered when I combined Euler’s law with quantum mechanics and converted it to a quantum field theory. I call it Strangelove mechanics.

The laws of Strangelove mechanics

1st law: A point particle moving in the Strangelove field experiences a centripetal force perpendicular to its velocity and pointed towards its moving center of mass.
F = m v^2 /r
r = y/(2 π)
Where: F is Strangelove force, m is mass of particle, v is velocity of particle, r is orbital radius, y is wavelength of matter-wave

Climate models generally simulate a long-term slowdown of the Pacific Walker Circulation in a warming world. However, despite increasing greenhouse forcing, there was an unprecedented intensification of the Pacific Trade Winds during 1992–2011, that co-occurred with a temporary slowdown in global surface warming. Using ensemble simulations from three different climate models starting from different initial conditions, we find a large spread in projected 20-year globally averaged surface air temperature trends that can be linked to differences in Pacific climate variability. This implies diminished predictive skill for global surface air temperature trends over decadal timescales, to a large extent due to intrinsic Pacific Ocean variability. We show, however, that this uncertainty can be considerably reduced when the initial oceanic state is known and well represented in the model. In this case, the spatial patterns of 20-year surface air temperature trends depend largely on the initial state of the Pacific Ocean.

A large uptick in dust activity in northern Mesopotamia…
“Carolin and her collaborators found an uptick in magnesium, a component of dust, in the stalagmite beginning 4,260 years ago…”

This has a good analogue around 3440 years later, beginning with a short but very deep centennial solar minimum in the early 1100’s AD, and then a grand solar minimum series from the early 1200’s onward.

I can plot a short centennial solar minimum starting 2310 BC, followed by a majorly long centennial minimum starting 2220 BC, the 4.2 kyr event.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event
Grand solar minima series are primarily ordered by a 1726.6 year cycle (+/- 10yrs), two of those on from 2220 BC is the early 1200’s AD.
The 1726.6 cycle also has a grand solar minimum series at its half cycle. 863 years before the early 1200’s AD is the start of the Antique Little Ice Age. 863 years after 2220 BC is the first of a pair of super solar minima that wiped out the Minoans and the the late Neolithic culture along with several others. From around 1360 BC and from 1250 BC. Repeats of those begin from the late 2090’s and 2200 AD, which I can confirm by discrete mapping of each centennial minimum.
I’m not a fan of the Eddy cycle.

Thanks.
As they say, ‘the devil is in the detail’, and hard to find. The 4.2kyr event appears to be a string of events, starting as early as 2345bce (precise tree ring) and here – (see C/N and sediment rate, source D’Andrea et al “Glacier response to North Atlantic climate variability during the Holocene”.); – my link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/
There appears to be a trigger to a cascade of events over many decades, with apparently multiple effects. From my starting point which was archaeological, I had been correlating proxies to establish event dates. The series of correlations to the Eddy cycle was a curiosity attempt on my part, but very surprising result. It is still a complete enigma, but there it is.
4375bce – also tree ring – appears an identical to 2345, if you can try/check that.

Circulation over the Northeast Pacific is still blocked.
During periods of very low solar activity there will be neither strong El Nino nor strong La Nina. Therefore, the global temperature will change slowly. The meridional jetstream will interfere with the typical ENSO cycle.
In the period of low solar activity, jet stream hinders the development of the full El Nio.
In 2015, full El Nio developed only after the increase in the magnetic activity of the Sun in 2015.

The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations:
(1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field;
(2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs;
(3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone;
(4) the adjustment of the extra tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor green house effect.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables

1.The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
2. Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
3. The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
4. Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.https://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php